Gujarat Court May 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jesangbhai Chehabhai Maheriya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-12-2008
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1813
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. This common judgment will decide this group of petitions, wherein panel selected for the post of Office Assistants in the Life Insurance Corporation of India has been sought to be operated in its entirety. The petitions have been filed against the impugned action of the respondents wherein they have sought to scrap it, in view of policy devised by them after amending Clauses 5 and 15 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV staff) Instructions, 1993, (hereinafter referred as 'Instructions of 1993') as amended on 26.11.2007. 2. For the purposes of facts, the petition of Shri Ramsingar alias Rajatkumar Ghirrau Sen, being Special Civil Application No. 2720 of 2008, is taken. 2.1. The petitioner, in his petition, inter alia states that on 26.11.2007, the respondent Corporation has published advertisement in local daily, 'Gujarat Samachar', and cancelled the select list in which the petitioner alongwith other candidates figured....
Mukesh Jagdishbhai Vasava Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR117
Bankim N. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner-accused has filed this Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ['the Code' for short] and challenged the order dated 25.01.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Bharuch, below application, Exhibit 69 in Sessions Case No. 88 of 2006.2. The petitioner-accused is being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 342, 506(2) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code pursuant to the F.I.R. registered with Nabipur Police Station at C.R. No. I-49 of 2006 on 27.06.2006.2.1 The petitioner-accused filed an application, Exhibit 69, under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ['the Act' for short] contending that his birth date is 21.11.1988 and, therefore, on 27.06.2006 when the complaint was filed, he was below the age of 18 years as his age was 17 years 7 months and 6 days. Therefore, under the provisions of th...
Rameshkumar Bhimjibhai Dhamel Vs. Madhubhai Bechar Parmar and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Guj187; (2008)3GLR2319
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition challenges the Order 24.7.2007 made by the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Muli, in Election Petition No. 2 of 2007 whereby the petitioner's Election Petition has been rejected on the ground of being barred by limitation.2. The petitioner, a resident of Shekhpur Village, Taluka Muli, District Surendranagar, participated in the election of Gram Panchayat held on 10.12.2006. It is the say of the petitioner that at the time of declaration of election result on 12.12.2006 the Election Officer declared the petitioner to be a successful candidate. However, on 28.12.2006 when the Collector, Surendranagar, the designated Election Commission Officer, declared the result whereunder respondent No. 1 herein was declared as elected to the post of Member, Ward No. 7, Shekhpur Village Panchayat, the petitioner came to know that the petitioner was declared to have lost the election. As according to the petitioner the counting of votes was not correct : though the petitio...
Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital Vs. Arunaben I. Desai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR87]; (2008)3GLR2656
M.R. Shah, J.1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Hospital Management has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and award dated 19-11-1997 passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (L.C.A.) No. 831 of 1986 directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages with continuity of service.2. Petitioner is one of the best Urological Hospital in Gujarat i.e. 'Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital' at Nadiad and the respondent was serving as nurse in the said hospital. The petitioner-Hospital is a charitable hospital and research institution for kidney diseases registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. It appears that the main object of the Trust is to provide social and medical services to the public and it seems that it is a non-profitable institution.3. The respondent was appointed as staff nurse by order dated 6-2-1984 initially on probation for a period of six months.4. It is the case on behal...
In Re: Official Liquidator of Various Companies (In Liq.)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-08-2008
Reported in: [2008]88SCL109(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The Official Liquidator has filed this report seeking permission of this Court to deduct an amount of Rs. 3,54,90,803 from the liquidated assets of the 103 Companies (In Liquidation) as per Annexure A to this report, in terms of Rule 291 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and to pay the said amount to the public account of India by depositing a cheque of the said amount for crediting to the Central Government's account in Reserve Bank of India through designated Bank of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Punjab National Bank, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. The Official Liquidator has also sought the permission to encash the fixed deposit receipts for making payment of this amount to the Central Government as per Annexure A to this report.2. Since the permission sought for by the Official Liquidator in the present report, if granted, will affect large number of Secured Creditors and workers, the Court was of the view that all concerned parties are required to be heard before passi...
In Re: Avani Petrochem P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-08-2008
Reported in: [2009]149CompCas604(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. These petitions filed by two petitioners for sanction of a scheme of arrangement in the nature of amalgamation of Amishi Petrochem P. Ltd., transferor company with Avani Petrochem Pvt. Ltd., transferee company under Section 391 to Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. It has been submitted that both the transferor and transferee companies belong to the same group of management and hence the board of directors of these companies thought it fit to restructure them through amalgamation for achieving synergic advantages. The amalgamated company would be in a position to maximise its profit through optimum utilisation of its resources and minimising the administrative and operative costs. The amalgamated company will have a much larger capital base, which will give it competitive edge and also provide financial requirements. Thus, the proposed amalgamation would create synergy of operations, optimise cost, eliminate unnecessary administrative overheads, results into pooli...
Ramdev Developers thr' Partner-Kishor. G. Vavia Vs. Jt. Chrity Commiss ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-07-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR337
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case appears to be that the respondent No. 2 is a charitable trust who is holding the land bearing Survey No. 319, which was earlier admeasuring 2 Acre 4 Guntha but now given Final Plot No. 14 admeasuring 6834 sq. mtrs. situated at Town Planning Scheme No. 3, Katargam at Surat. The respondent No. 2 Trust filed an application dated 26.06.2002 under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act for sale of 60% of the land admeasuring 4100.40sq. Mtrs. The said application was submitted before the Charity Commissioner. It appears that the paper advertisements were given and offers were invited. Ultimately, the Charity Commissioner vide order dated 07.01.2004, granted permission to the respondent No. 2 Trust for disposal of the land by accepting the offer of the petitioner for the sale consideration of Rs. 2,71,00,000/-. The respondent No. 4 claiming as the benefeciary of the Trust preferred appeal before the Tribunal being Appeal No. 13/04. The Tribun...
Surendrabhai Chunilal Sheth (Decd.) Through Heirs Mehulbhai and ors. V ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-07-2008
Reported in: 2006ACJ2527; (2008)3GLR2421
A.L. Dave, J.1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment and award rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Ahmedabad) on 27-7-2000 in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of 1996. These petitions arose out of an accident that occurred on 21-10-1995 at about 8-00 p.m., on National Highway No. 8 near Sandhana. Maruti van No. GJ-1-4073 going from Ahmedabad to Baroda side and truck No. PBM-7687 going from Baroda to Ahmedabad side collided with each other which resulted in death of one Surendrabhai Sheth and his wife Kanaklataben travelling in Maruti van. Maruti van was being driven by Malaykumar suffered injuries. His nephew Purva also suffered injuries who was also travelling in the van.1.1. M.A.C.P. No. 6 of 1996 was preferred for death of Surendrabhai, M.A.C.P. No. 5 of 1996 was preferred for death of Kanaklataben, M.A.C.P. No. 4 of 1996 was preferred for injuries suffered by Malaykumar, M.A.C.P. No. 3 of 1996 was preferred for injuries suffered by Purva through his...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Unique Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-07-2008
Reported in: [2008]307ITR350(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench-A, has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Revenue.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 3,40,644 made on account of Modvat credit 2. The assessment year is 1989-90, the relevant previous year being the financial year ended on March 31, 1989. The amount of Rs. 3,40,644 was available as credit to the assessee in terms of the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules thereunder. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 3,40,644 had to be treated as income of the assessee which was liable to tax because the assessee had not utilised the credit for payment of excise duty of adjusted the same against the purchase.3. In the appeal filed by the assessee...
Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Pioma Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1729
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sachin D. Vasavada for the petitioner and Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned Advocate for the respondent.2. RULE. Service is Rule is waived by learned Advocate Mr. DR Dave for the respondent. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, matter is taken up for final hearing today itself. 3. It is a case of lapses committed by the officer of the petitioner ESI Corporation and, on that basis, petitioner is challenging order passed by the Lok Adalat dated 3th October, 2006 in ESI Application No. 23 of 2002. Arguments advanced by the learned Advocate Mr. Vasavada on merits before this Court is totally irrelevant and yet, this Court has permitted him to argue on merits of the matter. Against the order passed by the Lok Adalat, appeal is not available. That is the view taken by the Hon'ble apex court. Limited scope to challenge the order passed in Lok Adalat. Writ petition before the High Court is limited remedy. Contention raised by the ESI Corpor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »